Mike4 wrote:You mean some buildings may not be fit to live in?
In starting this thread I was hoping to debate the issues of damp and mould in rentals rather than poor Awaab Ishak specifically.
OK, let's give this a go from the regulatory perspective. This is, after all, the Property Investment board and regulation of the private rented sector is a subject that is relevant to those of us who are invested in property.
One of the main regulations that the PRS is subject to is the
Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This comprises a list of some 29 hazards, with an assessment system that results in a "score" for each hazard which reflects the likelihood and seriousness of an adverse outcome occurring. Details of how the assessments should be applied, the list of hazards, etc are all contained in the
185 page "Operating Guidance" document (pdf).
All properties are subject to HHSRS, owner-occupied, PRS and social housing. Enforcement, ie formal assessments, can be undertaken by local authority officers (typically Environmental Health Officers).
Annex A sets out the responsibility of landlords. These are listed as:
Generally, the landlord (or owner) is responsible for the provision, state and proper working order of the following:
(a) the exterior and structural elements of the dwelling; and
(b) the installations within and associated with the dwelling for:
i the supply and use of water, gas and electricity;
ii personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage;
iii food safety;
iv ventilation;
v space heating; and
vi heating water.The 29 hazards are placed into one of 4 groups: physiological requirements, psychological requirements, protection against infection, protection against accidents. The first hazard in the physiological requirements group is Damp and Mould Growth. The narrative dealing with this hazard covers some 32 paragraphs of Annex A of the Operating Guidance. Health effects of the hazard are noted as being most serious amongst under 14's and are
due to the detritus from house dust mites and mould spores [which] are potent airborne allergens. Both are related to temperature and relative humidity (ie damp) and the causes of damp are identified as building defects (eg failed/lack of damp proof course) and inadequate background ventilation. Background ventilation should be adequate to avoid the hazard. In particular, and this may come as a surprise,
there should be sufficient and appropriate means of ventilation to deal with moisture generated by normal domestic activities without the need to open windows. (My emphasis.)
In addition to the HHSRS, social housing (such as that provided by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing) is also subject to the
Decent Homes Standard. This sets out (in
the inevitable pdf) 4 broad criteria for social housing and dates back to 2006 at a time when social housing was largely completing its transition from mainly being controlled by local authorities to structures such as arms length management organisations (ALMOs) and housing associations. The four broad criteria are:
Criterion a: It meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing - essentially no category 1 hazards under HHSRS
Criterion b: It is in a reasonable state of repair - building components (structure and stuff like plumbing and electrics) are not old and not in a poor state of repair
Criterion c: It has reasonably modern facilities and services - included in this are kitchens less than 20 years old and bathrooms less than 30 years old
Criterion d: It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort - defined quite weakly as
effective insulation (eg minimum of 50mm (yes mm not cm!) of loft insulation) and
efficient heating.
There was a
consultation over the summer specifically about extending the Decent Homes Standard to the PRS. The background section on the consultation webpage makes for interesting (IMHO) reading
The Decent Homes Standard has played a key role in setting the minimum standards that social homes are required to meet since the early 2000s. During our consultation events for the Social housing green paper, we heard that 72% of respondents agreed that changes to what constitutes a decent home should be considered.
That is why, in the Social housing white paper, published on 17 November 2020, the government committed to review the Decent Homes Standard.
The Levelling up white paper built on this ambition, setting a mission for the number of non-decent rented homes to have fallen by 50% with the biggest improvements in the lowest performing areas, alongside consulting on a legally binding Decent Homes Standard in the private rented sector for the first time.In their perennial objections to local authority proposals to introduce and continue schemes for selective and additional licensing in the PRS, the landlord associations (rightly in my view), note that the PRS is already highly regulated and that one of the main weaknesses in the current regulatory system is that there is an almost universal lack of enforcement. Local authorities, thanks to that nice and aptly named Mr Pickles, were subject to swingeing cuts during Osborne's Age of Austerity. Local authorities like selective/additional licensing schemes because they can recover the cost of these schemes through the licensing fees they are allowed to impose. However, and this is a personal opinion as I have never been subject to such a scheme, it strikes me that even with such schemes levels of inspection and enforcement are still fairly low. I suspect that it is this enforcement aspect that the senior North Manchester coroner had in mind when she called it a "defining moment" for the sector.
There is plenty of regulation which affects the PRS but, in my view, housing associations have largely been left to get on with it. They have certainly been encouraged through "build-to-sell" and "affordable rent" to act much more like commercial rather than social operators with all the consequences (good and bad) that this brings.
As I noted in my previous post, I think that housing associations will be the primary fallout target of the tragedy that befell the Ishak family. An article in
today's Times underlines this view.
In the Commons Michael Gove, the housing secretary, accused Rochdale Boroughwide Housing (RBH) of a “terrible dereliction of duty” that was “rooted in ignorance and prejudice”.
Gove said his department would “name and shame” landlords who had been found to have breached standards or committed severe maladministration, adding: “The time for empty promises is over.”
...
During the period, the pay of Gareth Swarbrick, the RBH chief executive, rose to £185,000, while the amount spent on major repairs fell. Gove said it “beggars belief” that Swarbrick, who lives in Bolton, was still in his job, and summoned him to a meeting.
“Our Social Housing Regulation Bill will bring in a rigorous new regime that holds landlords like these to account for the decency of their homes,” Gove said. “The reforms that we’re making will help to relieve the burden on tenants with an emboldened and more powerful regulator.” When I have recovered the will to live, I might write about my personal experience of a tenant who complained to the local authority about damp and condensation and what I subsequently said about the resulting "informal inspection" to the senior EHO who visited. It wasn't complimentary.
modellingman